2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Just reviewing the last few pages and it seems to be mostly a debate about bias in the media rather than what is actually going on in the presidential debate.

Im not saying that media bias is not important, nor that it isnt a political issue, but this hread seems to be veering off topic. If the debate has ceased to be about the actual presidential race and is instead on the reporting f the presidential race, this thread may have to be closed until maybe October.

Feel free to debate media bias issues in a separate thread or in humanities, journalism (if appropriate) etc.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

That impeachment was a politically motivated farce , for God's sake Eisenhower has his mistress installed as his personal driver through WW2 and still managed to become president .

How are his verbatim quoted comments taken out of context ? It is not like Eric Clapton's racist speech in the 1970's recorded only by a print journalist . This is 2016 - everything is filmed and recorded somewhere .

You may want to go back and reread the history books. Bill Clinton was not impeached and disbarred for doing some young intern in the Oval Office. He was impeached and disbarred for lying to a Grand Jury.

RobertKK

Trump has called for a special prosecutor to be brought in to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
James Carville is on CNN right now, the thing is he is saying Trump will get the Clinton Foundation shut down and it will cost lives.
He is failing to say why it would get shut down, because if there is an investigation and nothing wrong was found, why would it be shut down?
Maybe suspended during an investigation.

There are things about the Clinton Foundation that needs investigating, it did seem to help countries get military hardware deals done more rapidly if they donated money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.

Trump called the Clinton Foundation as being a pay for play foundation in association with Hillary's time at the State department, and anti-racketeering laws should be used to investigate the Foundation.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

You may want to go back and reread the history books. Bill Clinton was not impeached and disbarred for doing some young intern in the Oval Office. He was impeached and disbarred for lying to a Grand Jury.

Except his impeachment was acquitted. And he was only temporarily disbarred. All on the back of a witch hunt regarding an affair, that precious few gave a damn about.

Quin_Dub

Getting us back on track somewhat..

Trump has had a relatively gaff free few days and seems to be largely sticking to the teleprompter/script.

Clinton has had a few bad news stories break in the last 24/48 hours.

eMails to be released just before Election - Could this be the "October Surprise" ?

Huma Abedin (Clinton Advisor) linked to Radical Muslim Magazine in Editorial role

So - How much of an impact will this have?

Can Trump stay on message and actually benefit from Clinton missteps (he's failed up to now to capitalise) ?

How much of the Clinton email negativity is already "baked in" to her numbers as it stands , will her campaign take enough of a hit to matter in the swing states?

This is clearly a very "dirty" election , but then most US elections are , but I'm still not convinced that there's enough "new" bad news to terminally damage Clinton , nor am I confident that Trump won't have another "Khan Family" type moment again to undo any uplift he might get in the coming days...

K-9

That would be my thinking on it, really until we get a smoking gun I can't imagine much damage either way with the emails.

Trump is definitely more on message, coming out with a saner immigration message and something workable. Polls are better but Clinton campaigners would expect him to close the gap which is more a reflection on Trump than Hillary!

Amerika

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Just reviewing the last few pages and it seems to be mostly a debate about bias in the media rather than what is actually going on in the presidential debate.

Im not saying that media bias is not important, nor that it isnt a political issue, but this hread seems to be veering off topic. If the debate has ceased to be about the actual presidential race and is instead on the reporting f the presidential race, this thread may have to be closed until maybe October.

Feel free to debate media bias issues in a separate thread or in humanities, journalism (if appropriate) etc.

If that's the thinking then probably best to shut the thread down. This thread mirrors what is going on in the US presidential election. Three topics dominate the election. Donald Trump is bombastic and scary. Hillary Clinton is a crook and a liar. And the mainstream media is completely biased in favor of Democrats. There is not talk of policies. Trump goes from speech to speech with thousands of fans and give interviews. But the media only reports on the off the top things he says. Clinton gives speeches to a couple hundred fans and then goes into hiding. The media gleefully relays here talking points and does no interviews with her in order to ask questions. If we split off the media issue then split off dangerous, corruption, and lies. And IMO if we don't talk about the media, crazy, lying and corruption this thread will die on its own.

The issues... Trump wants to build a wall, get better trade deals, decrease taxes, and bring back jobs. Hillary wants free education, free childcare, amnesty for illegal aliens and more taxes. Could we talk about these without throwing in Trump is nuts, Clinton is corrupt and the media is bias? I don't think we have it within ourselves to do it... including myself. Welcome to US Politics.

K-9

I'd suggest starting a new thread on media bias and standard of journalism, well worth its own thread. It's something that has crept in a lot in this thread recently on both sides, just dismissing a link because it's the Daily Mail or whatever media source somebody finds unpalatable. Too much arguing over media sources than debating content.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The issues... Trump wants to build a wall, get better trade deals, decrease taxes, and bring back jobs. Hillary wants free education, free childcare, amnesty for illegal aliens and more taxes. Could we talk about these without throwing in Trump is nuts, Clinton is corrupt and the media is bias? I don't think we have it within ourselves to do it... including myself. Welcome to US Politics.

I find your posts like this hilarious. Trump wants to lower taxes and bring back jobs, excellent. Those are not policies though. Those are ideas. Ideas Clinton happens to share. Who doesn't want to lower taxes and bring back jobs?

It's how they are going to do it that constitutes policy.

Hilary wants to lower taxes or keep them flat on the middle/working class. She wants to raise taxes on higher earners. One pays for the other, or so the hope goes. That's the broad strokes anyway.

Broad strokes again, Trump wants to lower taxes on everyone. Who pays for this? Where's the fiscal responsibility you love so much? Unless you expect massive spending cuts. But the Donald also proposes increased military spending. The pot of money he needs gets bigger. Can you explain how it will be all paid for? I know Trump can't.

Your objection to free childcare and education is generally on the basis of the cost. Am I correct? Well who's going to end up paying for the tax cuts? Cuts to social security, Medicare or Education?

That's without getting to the point where the US defaults on its foreign debt, as Trump has proposed. The crash after that will make the credit crunch look like a blip.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

I'd suggest starting a new thread on media bias and standard of journalism, well worth its own thread. It's something that has crept in a lot in this thread recently on both sides, just dismissing a link because it's the Daily Mail or whatever media source somebody finds unpalatable. Too much arguing over media sources than debating content.

On that I completely agree... that the quality of media sources in the political process deserves its own thread. The constant ad hominem attacks against media sources here as the only basis for debate is disingenuous. We forget that each media source, regardless of political slant, does exert influence on our decision processes.

But you cannot separate media bias from this election process. The media has played a substantial roll in this election and will continue to do so, even though the public trust in the media has dipped to dramatically low levels because of perceptions of bias. It is reported that only 6% if Americans have a great deal of confidence in the press. A quandary to people like me who see that people don’t trust the media to be fair, yet still allow the media to greatly influence their decision process.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

On that I completely agree... that the quality of media sources in the political process deserves its own thread. The constant ad hominem attacks against media sources here as the only basis for debate is disingenuous. We forget that each media source, regardless of political slant, does exert influence on our decision processes.

But you cannot separate media bias from this election process. The media has played a substantial roll in this election and will continue to do so, even though the public trust in the media has dipped to dramatically low levels because of perceptions of bias. It is reported that only 6% if Americans have a great deal of confidence in the press. A quandary to people like me who see that people don’t trust the media to be fair, yet still allow the media to greatly influence their decision process.

Why don't we attempt to park the debate on media bias for now and talk policy? I've made an attempt in my last post.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I find your posts like this hilarious.

Glad I can bring a smile to your face. :P I’m politically biased. I have never pretended to be otherwise. And I am intelligent enough to realize people with alternative views have some valid points and have great influence in the political process. What I would not do, contrary to what some here believe, is merely dismiss a posters view just because it is different than mine. Yes, I will attack a political stance, or a particular politician, but that should not be considered to be a personal attack against anyone here.

Trump wants to lower taxes and bring back jobs, excellent. Those are not policies though. Those are ideas. Ideas Clinton happens to share. Who doesn't want to lower taxes and bring back jobs?

It's how they are going to do it that constitutes policy.

Of course they're ideas. Getting ideas/policies accomplished here is a difficult process. It takes an enormous amount of effort and compromise to get anything accomplished. What these ideas do, though, is gives us an indication of what our next President will be focusing their efforts on.

Hilary wants to lower taxes or keep them flat on the middle/working class. She wants to raise taxes on higher earners. One pays for the other, or so the hope goes. That's the broad strokes anyway.

Broad strokes again, Trump wants to lower taxes on everyone. Who pays for this? Where's the fiscal responsibility you love so much? Unless you expect massive spending cuts. But the Donald also proposes increased military spending. The pot of money he needs gets bigger. Can you explain how it will be all paid for? I know Trump can't.

That's without getting to the point where the US defaults on its foreign debt, as Trump has proposed. The crash after that will make the credit crunch look like a blip.

Your objection to free childcare and education is generally on the basis of the cost. Am I correct? Well who's going to end up paying for the tax cuts? Cuts to social security, Medicare or Education?

Hillary is proposing the same old, same old. I personally don’t think that is what people want. She is looking to get about $1 Trillion more in taxes from the rich, but plans on spending about $3 Trillion more. I don’t see how anyone other than the middle class can pay for this difference, because I can’t see any of her policies improving the economy, increasing jobs, or helping people’s lot in life.

At least Trumps plans would stimulate the economy. Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think would happen to Ireland and America’s economies, jobs and quality of life if our business tax rates were swapped? If you were honest about it, I don’t know how you could answer anything other then Ireland’s economy and people would be devastated and America would flourish.

But I realize it is not as simple as just reducing taxes. In order to really improve the economy we must also reduce the amount of job killing regulations we have, get better trade deals, stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages, and decrease some government spending which includes social security and medicare. Too many people here are capable of being productive in society yet live off government assistance because the government allows it. These are all things Trump is proposing in his overall strategy. That will increase the tax revenues to government in order to pay for our spending.

Contrary to what some might believe, business and stockholders will not just fork over a lot more money in taxes, out of the goodness of their hearts, without getting any benefit in return. They will do what is necessary to maximize profits which means decreasing the labor force, reducing full time employment which comes with costly benefits, and move more operations offshore to areas that don’t impose crippling taxes and regulations.

And my objection to free college education and childcare being provided by the government is multi-faceted. Cost is certainly a factor. Whenever the government gets its hands into something, the cost of those products and services always increase. Look at the college situation as it is. The cost of going to college has risen at alarming rates. Why? Because we have instilled in our children at an early age that they need to go to college. Trade professions are considered inferior. College costs have skyrocketed because the government guarantees loans to go to college for just about everyone, which guarantees colleges an endless amount of revenues. No consideration is given that so many students aren’t suited for college and drop out with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. We have bred a generation of thinkers and no doers. And we are creating a generation of people who rely on government control of our daily lives instead or relying on ourselves. And there are more.

Why don't we attempt to park the debate on media bias for now and talk policy? I've made an attempt in my last post.

Happy?

TheDoctor

I feel certain moderators are biased towards certain candidates......

Brian?

TheDoctor wrote: »

I feel certain moderators are biased towards certain candidates......

I feel you're right. What's the problem with that though? I'm not a mod a of this forum, but moderation is not about agreeing with posters it's about keeping the peace and ensuring the rules are followed.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

I feel certain moderators are biased towards certain candidates......

Here?

Well, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t influence their moderating responsibilities. I could never be a moderator here. With it comes the responsibility to be a tad more level-headed in posts even when not acting in a moderater's capacity.

marienbad

Amerika can I ask you your thoughts on the minimum wage ? As far as I can see it is just monumental corporate welfare to places like Walmart where employees can only exist with top ups from food stamps etc .

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika can I ask you your thoughts on the minimum wage ? As far as I can see it is just monumental corporate welfare to places like Walmart where employees can only exist with top ups from food stamps etc .

In theory I am against a minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs have historically been for part-time jobs, usually held by kids in school and people looking for supplemental income. But I am also practical. It does have some usefulness, to a point. Minimum wage jobs (usually entry level positions and non-skilled jobs) should not be the focus of people needing full-time work. I have witnessed it here when the minimum wage increases it often forces employers to cut back their labor force. Also, increasing the minimum wage increases the cost of products and services, making people who’s wages are increased having to pay more. Companies don’t pay more out of the goodness of their hearts. Every action will elicit a reaction in order to maximize profits. What is the benefit to having to pay more of the extra money you get, other than the government getting more taxes based on payroll, which allows them to spend it on things that benefit theirs crony friends and influential lobbyists? And a $15 minimum wage, as Hillary supports, will only increase unemployment, send more jobs overseas, and force the traditional low-paying jobs to go underground (under to table so-to-say) which means the government gets no tax revenues. Doing things like stopping illegal immigration that drives down wages, and doing things to improve the economy and increase the amount jobs is the organic way to increase wages.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Glad I can bring a smile to your face. :P I’m politically biased. I have never pretended to be otherwise. And I am intelligent enough to realize people with alternative views have some valid points and have great influence in the political process. What I would not do, contrary to what some here believe, is merely dismiss a posters view just because it is different than mine. Yes, I will attack a political stance, or a particular politician, but that should not be considered to be a personal attack against anyone here.


Of course they're ideas. Getting ideas/policies accomplished here is a difficult process. It takes an enormous amount of effort and compromise to get anything accomplished. What these ideas do, though, is gives us an indication of what our next President will be focusing their efforts on.



Hillary is proposing the same old, same old. I personally don’t think that is what people want. She is looking to get about $1 Trillion more in taxes from the rich, but plans on spending about $3 Trillion more. I don’t see how anyone other than the middle class can pay for this difference, because I can’t see any of her policies improving the economy, increasing jobs, or helping people’s lot in life.

At least Trumps plans would stimulate the economy. Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think would happen to Ireland and America’s economies, jobs and quality of life if our business tax rates were swapped? If you were honest about it, I don’t know how you could answer anything other then Ireland’s economy and people would be devastated and America would flourish.

But I realize it is not as simple as just reducing taxes. In order to really improve the economy we must also reduce the amount of job killing regulations we have, get better trade deals, stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages, and decrease some government spending which includes social security and medicare. Too many people here are capable of being productive in society yet live off government assistance because the government allows it. These are all things Trump is proposing in his overall strategy. That will increase the tax revenues to government in order to pay for our spending.

Contrary to what some might believe, business and stockholders will not just fork over a lot more money in taxes, out of the goodness of their hearts, without getting any benefit in return. They will do what is necessary to maximize profits which means decreasing the labor force, reducing full time employment which comes with costly benefits, and move more operations offshore to areas that don’t impose crippling taxes and regulations.

And my objection to free college education and childcare being provided by the government is multi-faceted. Cost is certainly a factor. Whenever the government gets its hands into something, the cost of those products and services always increase. Look at the college situation as it is. The cost of going to college has risen at alarming rates. Why? Because we have instilled in our children at an early age that they need to go to college. Trade professions are considered inferior. College costs have skyrocketed because the government guarantees loans to go to college for just about everyone, which guarantees colleges an endless amount of revenues. No consideration is given that so many students aren’t suited for college and drop out with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. We have bred a generation of thinkers and no doers. And we are creating a generation of people who rely on government control of our daily lives instead or relying on ourselves. And there are more.


Happy?

I'm very happy. If constrained for time. I'll reply later.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media is making out Trump to be some sort of crazy person which is divorced from reality.

Is it, though?

The media isn't just inventing from whole cloth the idea that Trump is unstable; the media is reacting to a range of unstable behaviours from Trump.

Most presidential candidates - even the truly, deeply disliked ones like Cruz - aren't being made out to be crazy people, because they don't behave like crazy people.

It's just facile to hand-wave away Trump's crazy behaviour and then criticise the media for calling it out. If he doesn't want to be considered some sort of crazy person, he should probably stop acting like one.

ancapailldorcha

TheDoctor wrote: »

I feel certain moderators are biased towards certain candidates......

I can't imagine why you would think so.....

Seriously though, the only way to find unbiased mods for a forum like this would be to recruit people who have no interest in politics whatsoever. They'll just end up getting bored and leaving.

A Primal Nut

oscarBravo wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media is making out Trump to be some sort of crazy person which is divorced from reality.

Is it, though?

The media isn't just inventing from whole cloth the idea that Trump is unstable; the media is reacting to a range of unstable behaviours from Trump.

Most presidential candidates - even the truly, deeply disliked ones like Cruz - aren't being made out to be crazy people, because they don't behave like crazy people.

It's just facile to hand-wave away Trump's crazy behaviour and then criticise the media for calling it out. If he doesn't want to be considered some sort of crazy person, he should probably stop acting like one.

To be fair if you listen to Trump's speeches you will get a different perspective than the media (CNN, NBC, Huffington Post, etc ) give. I watched one for the first time last night and it wasn't "I'm gonna drop a nuclear bomb as soon as I get into power, I hate women, black people, latinos, etc". Quite a lot of it was about the Clinton Foundation and portraying himself as the man who can fight corruption. Not saying that he was credible or that his facts are right but he came across fairly level-headed and sensible. Overall I'm not a fan but on the other hand I'm also not a big fan of the media trying to get Hilary elected at any cost, to the point it feels most of their articles are written by Clinton staffers (in fact some of the DNC leaks confirmed that the media were sending articles to the Democrats for approval).

oscarBravo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Not saying that he was credible or that his facts are right but he came across fairly level-headed and sensible.

He can come across as relatively level-headed and sensible when he's reading canned remarks from a teleprompter - in other words, when he's doing what he has relentlessly derided others for doing in the past. He also comes across as bored, low-energy and miserable when he does so.

That tells me that the level-headed and sensible persona isn't who he really is. When he's freewheeling and off-the-cuff - when he's coming up with crazy ideas and offending almost every demographic other than his white male base - he seems genuine.

You could ask, which is the real Trump? The question seems to me to answer itself: if he was level-headed and sensible, why would he have spent month pretending like hell to be crazy? Does that seem like a level-headed and sensible thing to do?

Overall I'm not a fan but on the other hand I'm also not a big fan of the media trying to get Hilary elected at any cost...

I'm no Hillary fan, but if I were voting in November, it would be a no-brainer. It's a straight choice between a fairly dishonest politician (which is almost tautological) and someone who is vastly more dishonest by any objective measure, as well as utterly unpredictable, pathologically incapable of diplomacy for any sustained period of time, thin-skinned, probably narcissistic, and generally unstable.

I know who I'd vote for. I won't particularly celebrate her win, but I'll be very happy to see him lose.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary is proposing the same old, same old. I personally don’t think that is what people want. She is looking to get about $1 Trillion more in taxes from the rich, but plans on spending about $3 Trillion more.

That's a $2tn increase in the debt. Trump's plans would result in $10tn being added to the debt.

At least Trumps plans would stimulate the economy.

Any proof of that? The American economy appears to be operating at full capacity so there's absolutely no reason to assume Trump or any policies he proposes could boost the economy.

In order to really improve the economy we must also reduce the amount of job killing regulations we have

I'm pretty sure these only exist inside the imaginations of Republicans.

get better trade deals

Define "better". Which trade deals does this involve negotiating?

stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages,

Immigration doesn't drive down wages.

decrease some government spending which includes social security and medicare.

Has Trump given any indication that he will do that?

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it, though?

The media isn't just inventing from whole cloth the idea that Trump is unstable; the media is reacting to a range of unstable behaviours from Trump.

Most presidential candidates - even the truly, deeply disliked ones like Cruz - aren't being made out to be crazy people, because they don't behave like crazy people.

It's just facile to hand-wave away Trump's crazy behaviour and then criticise the media for calling it out. If he doesn't want to be considered some sort of crazy person, he should probably stop acting like one.

Exactly.

In one way, i think Trump's constant conveyor belt of newly outrageous statements and claims actually helps him. It makes it look as though the media are biased against him because there's a new headline every day about how mental the last thing he said was, and this may fuel a trench mentality amongst his supporters. They might completely dismiss everything the media says about him because they'll just believe that it's all media bias against their candidate.

In another way, the fact that he says crazy new things almost every day stops people from actually absorbing the full extent of how crazy he is, it's all lost in the noise.

Trump said he wants to increase nuclear proliferation. He wants to allow the likes of Saudi Arabia and Japan to have nukes to protect against North Korea. If he hadn't also made a bunch of other offensive comments that week, he would have had wall to wall negative coverage of his policy of nuclear armageddon. Instead it got shoved off the news cycle and replaced with something else that he said that caused a few days outrage before the next crazy comment or policy came out...

Hillary on the other hand is bland, predictable and boring, so her political opponents can hammer on her over over again about her emails, and her foundation and her links to the saudis and her paid speeches etc. Repeating the same accusations over and over makes them appear true. Repeating different accusations over and over again makes it look like you're demonising someone.

There are so many reasons to oppose Donald Trump that it's hard to decide which reasons we should be focusing on, and so it ends up just being the latest politically incorrect statement he made.

KingBrian2

People on here keep saying they are no Clinton fan yet they do all they can to say how good she would be for America and how bad Trump would be. At a certain point you stop being a commentator and start becoming an advocate of one side over the other. As Trump has said Clinton has brought us "death destruction and weakness". This is the sort of phraseology that usually happens inside a committee room as opposed to speaking it to the media but it looks like it needs saying as nobody in Washington is listening.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People on here keep saying they are no Clinton fan yet they do all they can to say how good she would be for America and how bad Trump would be. At a certain point you stop being a commentator and start becoming an advocate of one side over the other. As Trump has said Clinton has brought us "death destruction and weakness". This is the sort of phraseology that usually happens inside a committee room as opposed to speaking it to the media but it looks like it needs saying as nobody in Washington is listening.

That is because it isn't true , no matter how many times it is repeated it still isn't true .

''death destruction and weakness'' is a direct result of Bush , Dick Cheney , Condi Rice , Rumsfeld et al - everyone one else were just bit players including HRC in a climate where to dissent was to be deemed unpatriotic .

And to try to blame the clusterfcuk that is the ME on her four years as Sec.
is just laughable .

And yes I know Obama was against the Iraq War.

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

That is because it isn't true , no matter how many times it is repeated it still isn't true .

''death destruction and weakness'' is a direct result of Bush , Dick Cheney , Condi Rice , Rumsfeld et al - everyone one else were just bit players including HRC in a climate where to dissent was to be deemed unpatriotic .

And to try to blame the clusterfcuk that is the ME on her four years as Sec.
is just laughable .

And yes I know Obama was against the Iraq War.

She played her part as did the Democrats. Trump was the first of his party to state categorically he was opposed to the Iraq war. He also was not in office when the Mexican border crisis started that was when Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement. The bank crisis is also on the Dems and Reps. Trump was busy

As a politician Trump is not the greatest. As a businessperson he is someone I admire.

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People on here keep saying they are no Clinton fan yet they do all they can to say how good she would be for America and how bad Trump would be. At a certain point you stop being a commentator and start becoming an advocate of one side over the other. As Trump has said Clinton has brought us "death destruction and weakness". This is the sort of phraseology that usually happens inside a committee room as opposed to speaking it to the media but it looks like it needs saying as nobody in Washington is listening.

I don't see a lot of love for Clinton on this forum. All I see is acceptance that despite all of Clinton's flaws, she could not possibly be worse than Trump.

Clinton is lucky to be running against the only candidate who she is capable of beating.

If she was against Rubio or Jeb Bush, or even certifiable loons like Cruz or that creationist brain surgeon guy, she would probably be losing right now.

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As a politician Trump is not the greatest. As a businessperson he is someone I admire.

Ok, but he's running for political office, not CEO of a company, so why are you supporting him for president when even you acknowledge he's a bad politician.

The President of the USA is a role that requires political nuance and an understanding of global politics that Trump clearly has absolutely no knowledge of.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As a politician Trump is not the greatest. As a businessperson he is someone I admire.

Would you not find a business person that isn't mediocre to admire?

KingBrian2

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but he's running for political office, not CEO of a company, so why are you supporting him for president when even you acknowledge he's a bad politician.

The President of the USA is a role that requires political nuance and an understanding of global politics that Trump clearly has absolutely no knowledge of.

Actually no it does not. The Republicans are all about limited governance and besides Congress controls the budget & the power to declare war. The existing GOP is far from what the principles of the Republican party was about. Their is a quote I came across online which sums up the attitude of many Republicans.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People on here keep saying they are no Clinton fan...

Correct.

...yet they do all they can to say how good she would be for America...

Wrong.

...and how bad Trump would be.

Correct.

I guess two out of three ain't bad.

Look: if you had a choice between a punch in the face or being kicked almost to death, you'd pick the punch in the face. It doesn't mean you're raving about how wonderful being punched in the face is; it means that it's better - way better - than being kicked almost to death.

If, every time someone says that they'd rather be punched in the face than be almost kicked to death, you turn around and accuse them of being a fan of a punch in the face, you're proving a point I've repeatedly made on this and the previous thread: it's impossible to defend Donald Trump by being truthful, so his supporters have to make stuff up instead.

Doesn't it bother you, that you have to make stuff up in order to support your position? Wouldn't it be nice if you could say things that are true instead? Wouldn't that be an indication that your chosen candidate is, in fact, the better choice?

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She played her part as did the Democrats. Trump was the first of his party to state categorically he was opposed to the Iraq war. He also was not in office when the Mexican border crisis started that was when Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement. The bank crisis is also on the Dems and Reps. Trump was busy

As a politician Trump is not the greatest. As a businessperson he is someone I admire.

''She played her part '' - give me a break . Everyone that voted for that war played a part ,but for the vast majority including HRC it was a bit part , the prime movers were those I have listed .

As for the rest of your post , you are just lumping a load of stuff together that has very little substantive connection with either HRC or Trump.

I really don't get how people admire Trump as a businessman - he embodies the worst aspects of capitalism and he isn't particularly good at it .

Just our of interest what do you admire about him ?

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

''She played her part '' - give me a break . Everyone that voted for that war played a part ,but for the vast majority including HRC it was a bit part , the prime movers were those I have listed .

As for the rest of your post , you are just lumping a load of stuff together that has very little substantive connection with either HRC or Trump.

I really don't get how people admire Trump as a businessman - he embodies the worst aspects of capitalism and he isn't particularly good at it .

Just our of interest what do you admire about him ?

I wonder why Mike Pence isn't on the hook for supporting the war. :rolleyes:

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

''She played her part '' - give me a break . Everyone that voted for that war played a part ,but for the vast majority including HRC it was a bit part , the prime movers were those I have listed .

The Iraq Resolution was enacted by the US Congress. No member of Congress had a ‘bit part.’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA

alastair

Akrasia wrote: »

Clinton is lucky to be running against the only candidate who she is capable of beating.

If she was against Rubio or Jeb Bush, or even certifiable loons like Cruz or that creationist brain surgeon guy, she would probably be losing right now.

Clinton would certainly have a much tougher run against Rubio or Bush, but she would beat Cruz, on account of he's even less likeable, and Carson, as he's simply an oddball that nobody can really empathise with.

Given that Trump's campaign is going nowhere, the interesting question is who, in the Democrats, is going to run against Hillary in four years time, and what sort of return to sanity candidate the Republicans will throw up. Three Democratic administrations in a row, with the many challenges facing the U.S., should be ripe ground for a reasoned Republican candidate, so assuming they purge the worst loonery from the party platform, they would create a real challenge for Hillary - who is unlikely to win an improved voter base over the next four years. She's not going to become more likeable, and the reality of office is that people remember only the bad stuff under your watch. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan built their second term vote, not on policy achievements, but largely on sheer force of personality. People liked them, and wanted them to hang in there - I can't see this happening with Hillary.

KingBrian2

Amerika wrote: »

The Iraq Resolution was enacted by the US Congress. No member of Congress had a ‘bit part.’

People never seem to connect the dots on that. They pin it all on the President. And of course what is happening now is actually turning people off entering politics. Washington is so corrupt that if you decide to enter that world you become part of that culture instead of cleaning it up. Hillary was among Washington circles for decades. Her party is steeped in corruption. The Democrats gave Bush the authorization for war.

They also supported a raft of measures that never made America or the world any more safer. How many Democrats refused to agree to the Kyoto agreement or the treaty of Rome which would prosecute US soldiers fighting in warzones around the world? The answer, nobody knows because Washington is broken and most Republicans are not even Republicans. The modern GOP is unrecognizable even to the Bush snr years.

Pro Hoc Vice

alastair wrote: »

Clinton would certainly have a much tougher run against Rubio or Bush, but she would beat Cruz, on account of he's even less likeable, and Carson, as he's simply an oddball that nobody can really empathise with.

Given that Trump's campaign is going nowhere, the interesting question is who, in the Democrats, is going to run against Hillary in four years time, and what sort of return to sanity candidate the Republicans will throw up. Three Democratic administrations in a row, with the many challenges facing the U.S., should be ripe ground for a reasoned Republican candidate, so assuming they purge the worst loonery from the party platform, they would create a real challenge for Hillary - who is unlikely to win an improved voter base over the next four years. She's not going to become more likeable, and the reality of office is that people remember only the bad stuff under your watch. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan built their second term vote, not on policy achievements, but largely on sheer force of personality. People liked them, and wanted them to hang in there - I can't see this happening with Hillary.

I thought there is a convention that the party of a sitting president does not put up opposition. I see I am wrong.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump was the first of his party to state categorically he was opposed to the Iraq war.

There was no conclusive evidence found that Donald Trump publicly stated and was "categorically he was opposed to the Iraq war" before it began. Just before the 2nd Persian Gulf War 11 September 2002 he did comment on a Howard Stern show about going to war: “Yeah, I guess so.”

Back then Trump was more concerned about how war might affect his Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts overseas investments (Trump was benefiting from globalisation, and continues to do so today, regardless of his so-called pseudo-opposition to globalisation today). It was only after the war started that he was "categorically...opposed," not before. Claiming that he was strongly opposed before the war was yet another example of Trump historical revisionism in an attempt to make himself look good before his Eric Hoffer "true believers" today while running for 2016 president.

Of course Donald Trump does not lie, per his own self-proclaimed statements, only other presidential candidates do. He has been quoted here in this thread several times supporting and praising Hillary Clinton from 1997 to 2012 while she was First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State, but now says the opposite.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As a politician Trump is not the greatest. As a businessperson he is someone I admire.

Do you admire the founder of Trump University, a fake "university" that was not allowed to call itself a "university" per the laws of New York, that opened 2005 and failed 2010? The same fake "university" where Donald Trump is NOW a defendant for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" in US District Court. And not just one case, but 3 different class action cases of alleged "fraud" in the states of New York and California on behalf of thousands of former Trump University students. Trump University says a lot about Donald Trump "businessperson."

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

There was no conclusive evidence found that Donald Trump publicly stated and was "categorically he was opposed to the Iraq war" before it began. Just before the 2nd Persian Gulf War 11 September 2002 he did comment on a Howard Stern show about going to war: “Yeah, I guess so.”

Back then Trump was more concerned about how war might affect his Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts overseas investments (Trump was benefiting from globalisation, and continues to do so today, regardless of his so-called pseudo-opposition to globalisation today). It was only after the war started that he was "categorically...opposed," not before. Claiming that he was strongly opposed before the war was yet another example of Trump historical revisionism in an attempt to make himself look good before his Eric Hoffer "true believers" today while running for 2016 president.

Of course Donald Trump does not lie, per his own self-proclaimed statements, only other presidential candidates do. He has been quoted here in this thread several times supporting and praising Hillary Clinton from 1997 to 2012 while she was First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State, but now says the opposite.

You let Hillary off and the Democrats for sanctioning the war and being in a position of power to influence events. Trump is not only against Hillary but also the Republican est which you left out. Jeb Bush, Rubio & Hillary follow the same warmongering agenda that has caused "death, destruction and weakness". It was not only President Bush it was a Congress that was rolling over itself to accommodate Cheney and the war hawks.

Black Swan

Donald Trump, who owns Trump Tower, has now nearly "quintupled the monthly rent" for his campaign headquarters given that donors are now paying for it. Does anyone see a conflict-of-interest with Trump now paying himself out of donor money for Trump Tower HQ? Not only did Ivanka Trump promote and sell-out her "Collection" pink dress she wore to introduce her father at the RNC, a dress not "Made in America," but now Donald is profiting as campaign HQ landlord. Makes me wonder what else the Trump's will be selling if Donald is elected president. America to the highest bidder to financially profit the Trumps? This reads as poor fiction. What a craic this presidential 2016 election has become!

marienbad

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I thought there is a convention that the party of a sitting president does not put up opposition. I see I am wrong.

Robert Kennedy for one ran for the nomination and forced Johnson out .

RobertKK

On CNN, over 50% of private individuals who had meetings at the State Department while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were Clinton Foundation donors.

It gives a bad perception however one looks at it.

Associated Press are behind the news.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Black Swan

Following the RNC there was a shakeup in the Trump Campaign leadership, especially when campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigned after allegations of Manafort's pro-Russian Ukrainian interests had been revealed. Several news media sources suggested that Trump needed to restart his campaign, pivoting substantially from his campaign tactics exhibited during the Republican primaries. Probably one of the best summaries I've seen that addressed this Trump shakeup and pivoting was done by Seth Meyers in his NBC Monday Late Night show: "The New Trump: A Closer Look."

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you admire the founder of Trump University, a fake "university" that was not allowed to call itself a "university" per the laws of New York, that opened 2005 and failed 2010? The same fake "university" where Donald Trump is NOW a defendant for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" in US District Court. And not just one case, but 3 different class action cases of alleged "fraud" in the states of New York and California on behalf of thousands of former Trump University students. Trump University says a lot about Donald Trump "businessperson."

This again?

Gee, I kinda thought it was a prerequisite this presidential election to have profited off of potential shady dealings of suspect universities.

Recent released emails show that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally intervened on behalf of Laureate Education (a for-profit college corporation), that her husband Bill had pocketed about $16.5 Million from as their “honorary chancellor,” and the Clinton Foundation got between $1 Million to $5 Million in donations from. Hillary Clinton’s State Department pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate.

Read some horror stories from former student-victims of Laureate. Wouldn’t you agree they sound quite similar in basis to the lawsuits currently going on over Trump University? If ex-students win in the lawsuit against Trump University, we will probably see lawsuits against Laureate that would make Trump University look like pikers in comparison..

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-blasts-profit-colleges-bill-took-millions-one-n636786?cid=sm_tw&mid=78052&rid=15158626

Nothing to see here regarding ‘Clinton University’… please go back to ONLY trashing Trump University?

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

On CNN, over 50% of private individuals who had meetings at the State Department while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were Clinton Foundation donors.

It gives a bad perception however one looks at it.

Associated Press are behind the news.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP

Apparently the State was for sale, and it is becoming all to clear that the Clinton Foundation was a center of influence peddling.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think today’s front page of the New York Post says it all.

RobertKK

Tonight Nigel Farage will be speaking at a Donald Trump presidential rally to talk about Brexit, he says he is not endorsing Trump and is just there to give the Brexit story.
I doubt Nigel will be telling how lies won the Brexit debate.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Apparently the State was for sale, and it is becoming all to clear that the Clinton Foundation was a center of influence peddling.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think today’s front page of the New York Post says it all.

It's no different to what every other politician does. This just an example of Hillary being held to a higher standard than everyone else

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's no different to what every other politician does. This just an example of Hillary being held to a higher standard than everyone else

Really? What other politicians held top echelon federal government positions while operating a charitable foundation that could easily be considered an influence peddling slush fund that allowed them to keep their political army intact as they prepared for a presidential campaign?